Facilities Master Plan/ CIP IV Program Overview
Fulton County School District
September 23, 2010
2
Agenda
Program Overview Ed Specifications Update Facility Condition
Assessment Report Educational Adequacy/
Technology Readiness Report
Next Steps/ Facility Masterplan
CIP IV Timeline
2
3 3
Introductions
Don O’Neil, Program Director Sam Mandola, PMP, Project Manager Rosalyn Moore, Project Planner/Coordinator of
Ed Specification
3 3
Mr. Patrick Burke, Chief of Operations
Edward Humble, PhD, Partner In Charge Susan Zoller, Project Director
4 4
Facilities Master Plan/ CIP IV Program
4 4
Edward Humble, PhD, Partner In Charge Susan Zoller, Project Director
5 5
Facilities Master Plan/ CIP IV Program
5 5
Edward Humble, PhD, Partner In Charge Susan Zoller, Project Director
15 15
Facilities Condition Assessment
15 15
Facilities Condition Assessment Report by Sam Mandola
16
Project Overview Conduct a Comprehensive Facility Assessment of all Fulton County School District facilities during the period November 2009 – June 2010
Assess for each school:
Physical condition Educational adequacy Technological readiness Equipment inventory Energy conservation
opportunities
17
Comprehensive Facility Assessment - Objectives
17 17 17
Data
Provide knowledge of existing facilities in terms of physical
condition, educational
adequacy, and technology readiness
Identify current, deficiencies, deferred
maintenance, educational adequacy,
and corrective work required
Forecast cost and future budgets for
educational adequacy, technology readiness,
and capital renewal needs
Forecast Maintenance
18
Comprehensive Facility Assessment - Objectives
18 18 18
Energy
Provide insight into energy consumption
for cost savings
Provide information for future capital
improvement programs
Information Equipment
Conduct equipment inventory and install
bar code labels
19
Project Time Line
Project Kick-Off November 23 – 24, 2009
Pilot Studies (5 Schools) December 7 – 9, 2009
Field Data Collection January 4 – May 14, 2010
Individual School / Site Report Preparation January 11 – June 4, 2010
Comprehensive Assessment Report Preparation June 7 – August 6, 2010
Presentation of Findings to Fulton County School Board September 23,2010
19 19 19
20
107 School and Non-School Sites 15,103,321 Gross Square Feet
58 Elementary Schools 19 Middle Schools 15 High Schools 15 Non-School Sites
Administrative Special Purpose Maintenance Transportation Warehouse
Comprehensive Facility Assessment - Scope
20 20 20
21 21 21 21
Comprehensive Facility Assessment - 5 Parts
Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA) Educational Adequacy Assessment Technology Readiness Assessment Energy Conservation Opportunities Assessment Equipment Inventory and Bar Code Labeling
22
Part 1 - Condition Assessment
Assess the physical condition of each Permanent Buildings Building Systems
Foundations Roofing Exterior walls Windows and doors Interiors Mechanical (HVAC) Plumbing Fire Protection Electrical Site Work
Identify and prioritize Current deficiencies Deferred maintenance Future capital renewal
needs for each school facility
Provide cost estimates for budget planning
22 22 22
23
Part 1 - Condition Assessment - Findings
The school facilities are in overall Good condition. This is primarily attributed to the average age of only 21 years.
The non-school facilities are in overall Poor condition. This is primarily attributed to the average age of 46 years.
Lighting, HVAC and roofing upgrades have extended the useful life of these buildings systems. However, the assessment data reveals that there still are significant needs in HVAC, roofing, and electrical systems.
Building interior systems, including doors, floors, ceilings, and walls finishes, fixed furnishings, and fittings (toilet partitions and accessories, lockers) represent a majority (31%) of deferred maintenance needs. This is attributed to typical wear and tear on these interior systems.
General maintenance and repair of the facilities is very good.
23 23 23
24 24
Part 1 - Condition Assessment - Findings
Measuring Condition: Facility Condition Index (FCI)
Formula: = FCI Needed Repairs ($)
Replacement Value ($)
Example: = 50% FCI Needed Repairs of $5M
Replacement Value of $10M
5,000,000
10,000,000 =
Best Practices for FCI FCI Condition
0 to 15% Good
15.1% - 30% Fair 30.1% - 50% Poor
>50% Unacceptable
Condition Finding #1: Facility Condition Index (FCI) and Rating for Each School
25
Condition Finding #2: Facility Condition Index (FCI) by Facility Type
26
Facility Type Total Current
Deferred Maintenance Cost
Current Replacement Value FCI% Condition
Rating
Fulton County School District $399,560,008 $2,947,196,267 13.56% Good Elementary Schools $178,498,463 $1,167,231,308 15.29% Fair
High Schools $93,461,456 $963,771,035 9.70% Good Middle Schools $52,706,419 $608,701,542 8.66% Good
Non School Facilities* $74,893,670 $207,492,382 36.09% Poor
* Non-Schools are defined as Administrative, Special Purpose, Transportation, Maintenance, Support, or Warehouse type facilities.
Facility Condition Index (FCI) by School and Non-School Types. FCI scores are typically interpreted as, the lower the score, the better the condition of the facility
Condition Finding #3: Distribution by Facility Type
27
Facility Type Number of Facilities GSF % of Total GSF FCI
Elementary Schools 58 6,432,038 42.59% 15.29% (Fair)
High Schools 15 4,486,042 29.70% 9.70% (Good)
Middle Schools 19 3,102,239 20.54% 8.66% (Good)
Non School Sites 15 1,083,002 7.17% 36.09% (Poor)
Total 107 15,103,321 100.00% 13.56% (Good)
The Facility Type is the educational level provided by the facility.
The square foot amounts include all permanent buildings, ancillary buildings, and athletic buildings.
The following table indicates the functional distribution by gross square feet (GSF), the percent of total GSF, and associated FCI for each type of facility and non-school facility.
Condition Finding #4: Facility Age
NCES – National Center for Education Statistics
28
School Characteristics Fulton County NCES
Average Age in years 18 42
Median Date Built 1994 NA
Built before 1950 1% 28.00%
Built between 1950 and 1969 8% 45.00%
Built between 1970 and 1984 11% 17.00%
Built after 1985 80% 10.00%
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in 1998 the average age of a public school building in the United States was 42 years old.
There are 177 school buildings and additions in FCS portfolio. The average age of these Fulton County school buildings is 18 years, which is 24 years newer than the NCES national average and 19 years newer than the Southeast regional average.
Condition Finding #5: Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Cost Estimates
29
Finding Budget Estimates
Current Period Needs (2010 - 2013) Condition Deferred Maintenance Needs $399,560,008
Total Current Period (2010 - 2013) Deferred Maintenance Needs $399,560,008
Current Replacement Value (CRV) $2,947,196,267
Forecast Period Needs (2014–2022)
Capital Renewal Needs $844,203,181
Total Current and Forecast Period Deferred Maintenance & Capital Renewal Needs (2010 – 2022 $1,243,763,189
The following table summarizes the cost estimates and indices for the Current Period (2010 -2013) condition deferred maintenance needs and the Forecast Period (2014 – 2022) needs.
Notes: •Condition Deferred Maintenances needs reflect order-of-magnitude estimates as of 2010 and represent Current Period (2010 – 2013) deferred maintenance needs. This figure includes building code compliance deficiencies and energy conservation opportunities. Capital Renewal needs for the Forecast Period (2014 – 2022) is excluded. •Current Replacement Value (CRV) represents the hypothetical total cost of rebuilding or replacing an existing facility in current dollars to its optimal condition under current codes and construction methods. •Capital Renewal needs are forecast needs based on the anticipated chronological expiration of the remaining useful life of those building system not yet expired as of 2010. Dollar amounts are order-of-magnitude estimates.
Condition Finding #6: Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Needs by Gross Square Feet (GSF)
30
Needs GSF Estimate Estimate / GSF % of Total
Condition Deferred Maintenance (2010 - 2013) $399,560,008 $26.46 32%
Capital Renewal (2014 - 2022) $844,203,181 $55.90 68% Total 15,103,321 $1,243,763,189 $82.35 100%
Condition Finding #7: Facility Condition Index (FCI) per GSF
31
FCI GSF % of GSF
0–15% 7,840,115 52% 15.1-30% 5,174,893 34% 30.1-50% 1,992,607 13%
>50% 95,706 1% Total 15,103,321 100%
Gross Square Footage figures do not include portable classrooms. This data includes non-school buildings with an FCI average of 36.09 (Poor)
Condition Finding #8: Needs by Facility System
32
Major System Deferred
Maintenance Estimate
% of Deferred Maintenance Estimate
Interior Finishes $ 81,732,460 20% HVAC $ 69,727,738 17%
Electrical $ 60,389,335 15% Site Improvements $ 56,196,299 14%
Roofing $ 26,266,503 7% Interior Construction $ 24,422,035 6%
Equipment & Furnishings $ 23,049,901 6% Plumbing $ 21,139,743 5%
Exterior Enclosure $ 18,304,351 5% Special Construction $ 9,317,393 2%
Site Electrical Utilities $ 3,289,761 1% Site Mechanical Utilities $ 2,628,247 1%
Fire Protection $ 1,732,903 0.434% Foundations $ 546,700 0.137%
Basement Construction $ 433,759 0.109% Conveying $ 275,080 0.069%
Site Preparation $ 78,688 0.020% Stairs $ 16,320 0.004%
Superstructure $ 12,792 0.003% Total $ 399,560,008 100%
The basis of the cost estimates are taken from two sources.
The first source is the 2009 RS Means Square Foot Cost for Construction Estimating Guide which provides the square foot unit cost for each of the facility systems.
The second source of the cost estimates is a local comparison of the RS Means unit cost to the actual cost of construction being paid by Fulton County Schools.
Condition Finding #9: Needs by Deficiency Priority
33
Priority Description Repair Estimate
1 Critical/Immediate Need $545,288 2 Potentially Critical – 12 months $4,762,479 3 Necessary – 2 – 5 years $392,005,336 4 Recommended – 3 – 10 years $2,161,210 5 Does Not Meet Current Code/Standards $85,695
Total $399,560,008
The relatively low figure for Priority 1 – Critical / Immediate needs reveals that critical and safety related work is being managed well by Fulton County Schools.
It is normal for priorities to be reevaluated as financial resources and limits are established. Some Building Code and Energy Conservation Opportunities are considered as deferred maintenance and are included with Priority 3.
Condition Finding #10: Needs by Deficiency Category
34
Category Description Needs Estimate % of Needs Estimate
ILSN List Infrastructure and Local School Needs (ILSN), includes systems level deficiencies previously identified by Fulton County Schools
$169,767,985 42.49%
Critical Repair These are deficiencies that should be considered for remedy within the next 12 months $3,864,107 0.97%
Deferred Maintenance Includes beyond useful life, damaged, broken, failing, inadequate, and other deficiencies $221,656,433 55.48%
Energy Conservation Energy Conservation Opportunities $4,271,483 1.07% Total $399,560,008 100.00%
Categories do not reflect the affordability of needed repairs within the district, nor do they reconcile facility needs with the district’s master plan priorities or educational program objectives.
Additional Building Code Compliance and Energy Conservation Opportunities are identified as Deferred Maintenance.
Condition Finding #11: Needs by Deficiency Distress
35
Distress Description Budget Estimate
Beyond Expected Useful Life The building systems or components have exceeded their design or estimated useful life
$357,783,931
Missing System or component is absent $10,799,003 Inadequate System is insufficient for intended purpose $1,107,489
Failing System functions sporadically or intermittently $24,973,691
Damaged Use or function is impaired or broken $4,895,894 Total $399,560,008
Distress does not reflect the affordability of needed repairs within a district, nor does it reconcile facility needs with a district’s master plan priorities or educational program objectives.
Distress defines those items that are beyond expected useful life, missing, inadequate, failing, or damaged. As shown, most of the needs in FCS are based on systems being beyond expected useful life.
Condition Finding #12: Capital Renewal Needs Forecast
36
Year Capital Renewal FCI 2010 - 13 13.56%
2014 $41,504,881 16.47% 2015 $209,570,714 23.58% 2016 $51,983,905 25.34% 2017 $38,249,117 26.64% 2018 $68,934,022 28.98% 2019 $130,819,270 33.42% 2020 $131,315,862 37.88% 2021 $98,472,147 41.22% 2022 $73,353,263 43.71%
2014 – 2022 Total $844,203,181
37
Condition Finding #12: Capital Renewal Needs Forecast Year
Annual Funding Needed to Maintain Current FCI
(13.56%)
Annual Funding Needed to Improve
FCI to 10%
Annual Funding Needed to
Improve FCI to 5%
2014 $41,504,881 $52,728,837 $68,677,632 2015 $209,570,714 $22,861,623 $239,129,395 2016 $51,983,905 $63,793,927 $80,387,054 2017 $38,249,117 $50,295,328 $67,220,317 2018 $68,934,022 $81,718,589 $98,982,078 2019 $130,819,270 $144,327,650 $161,936,408 2020 $131,315,862 $144,616,959 $162,577,893 2021 $98,472,147 $112,030,129 $130,350,281 2022 $73,353,263 $86,728,402 $105,414,957 Total $844,203,181 $959,101,444 $1,114,676,015
38
Facilities Condition Assessment
38 38 38
QUESTIONS ??
39 39
Adequacy Assessments
39 39
Educational Adequacy/Technology Readiness Report
by Susan Zoller
40
Adequacy Assessments
Assessment of Schools Educational Adequacy Technology Readiness
Analyze How Each Facility Meets Needs
Identify Inadequacies
Create Recommendations and Budget Estimates
40 40 40
41
Educational Adequacy
Scope of Work and Approach: Review district educational
specifications Determine educational needs of
existing facilities Address major components:
Site adequacy
Security
Adequacy of program spaces
Relationship of spaces
Attributes of spaces
Learning environment
Technology infrastructure
41 41
42
Educational Adequacy – General Findings
Many schools include all the facilities necessary to meet most educational needs.
The location of a space is often the issue.
Library/Media Centers not located near classrooms
Main administrative areas not having control of entrances
Public venues – gyms, performing arts – near classroom spaces
Some schools lack storage space to support programs. Some buildings are difficult to supervise with multiple entrances. Schools were designed to support varied learning styles, but
enrollments changed. Many schools have temporary buildings located on site.
43
Educational Adequacy Scores
90+ Good: The facility is designed to provide for and support the educational program offered. It may have minor adequacy issues but generally meets the needs of the educational program.
75-89 Fair: The facility has some problems meeting the needs of the educational program and may require some remodeling.
50-74 Poor: The facility has numerous problems meeting the needs of the educational program and needs significant remodeling or additions.
Below 50 Unacceptable: The facility is unsuitable in many areas of the educational program.
Adequacy Score Definitions
e
Adequacy Finding #1: Adequacy Score Range and Average by Facility Type
44
Adequacy
School Type Minimum Maximum Average
Elementary 58 98 85
Middle 51 85 75
High 59 91 73
Non-Traditional High School 51 76 63 Source: MGT of America, Inc., 2010.
Adequacy Finding #2: Adequacy Score by School
Example:
45
Site Name
Adequacy Score
Elementary Schools Abbotts Hill ES* 87 Alpharetta ES 58 Barnwell ES 69 Bethune, Mary M. ES 84 Birmingham ES* 96
Adequacy Finding #3: Adequacy Percent of Schools by Facility Type
46
* Non-traditional high schools are not included *(
Adequacy Finding #4: Adequacy Percent of Schools by Rating
47
48
Part 2 - Technology Readiness Assessment
Evaluated ability to support technology-based instructional and administrative functions
Evaluated LANs, WANs, computer infrastructure, video distribution, data drops, and other information systems
Part 2 - Technology Readiness - Scores
49
Technology Readiness Score Definitions
90+ Good: The facility has the infrastructure to support information technology.
75-89 Fair: The facility is lacking in some infrastructure.
50-74 Poor: The facility is lacking significant infrastructure to support information technology.
Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The facility has little or no infrastructure to support information technology.
50
Part 2 - Technology Readiness - Findings
Assessments based on the infrastructure standards
developed by Fulton County Schools.
Most schools have technology infrastructure to support the needs of the program.
Of the 93 schools assessed for technology readiness: 33 percent were rated “Good” 51 percent were rated “Fair” 16 percent were rated “Poor”
Adequacy Finding #5: Technology Readiness Score Range and Average
51
Technology
School Type Minimum Maximum Average
Elementary 70 100 87
Middle School 78 100 89
High School 75 100 87
Non-Traditional High School 82 93 87 Source: MGT of America, Inc., 2010.
Adequacy Finding #6: Technology Readiness Score by School Example:
52
Middle Schools Autrey Mill MS* 84 Bear Creek MS 70 Camp Creek MS 66 Crabapple MS 67 Elkins Pointe MS 84
Adequacy Finding #7: Technology Readiness Percent of Schools by Type
53
* Non-traditional high schools are not included *(
Adequacy Finding #8: Technology Readiness Percent of Schools by Rating
54
Needs new table
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Unsat Poor Fair Good
Fulton County School DistrictPercent of Schools by Rating
55
Combined Scores
Combined Scores
Site Condition Adequacy Tech Combined 50% 40% 10%
Elementary School Average 84 85 87 85
Middle School Average 91 75 89 84
High School Average 90 73 87 83
Non-Traditional High School Average 61 63 87 65
District Average 86 80 88 84
56 56
Combined Scores by School Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Elementary SchoolAverage
Middle SchoolAverage
High School Average Non-Traditional HighSchool Average
District Average
Condition
Adequacy
Tech
Combined50% 40% 10%
Adequacy Assessments
QUESTIONS ??
57
58 58
Next Steps/ Facilities Master Plan
58 58
Next Steps/Facilities Master Plan by Ed Humble
Next Steps
Enrollment / Capacity / Utilization Combined Review of Needs Prioritization Development of Draft Master Plan Staff / Superintendent / Board
Reviews Presentation of Master Plan
59
Combined Review of Needs
Condition & Adequacy
Improvements Address Capacity Issues School Size Feeder Patterns Administrative Facilities Equity
60
61
Prioritization
SCHOOL NAME
COMBINED SCORE UTILIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND PHASES
CURRENT (2009)
PROJECTED (2015) REPLACE RENOVATE ADDITION FOR
CAPACITY NEW SCHOOL
IN AREA BOUNDARY
CHANGE
PHASE COST PHASE COST PHASE COST PHASE COST
School 1 78.26 High High
School 2 77.87 High High
School 3 85.29 High Good
School 4 92.22 High Over
School 5 95.51 Under Over
Total/Average 85.83 258% 301% $ - $ - $ - $ -
Next Steps/ Facilities Master Plan
Questions ??
62
63 63
CIP IV Timeline
63 63
CIP IV Timeline by Patrick Burke
CIP IV Timeline
CIP 4 Timeline by Patrick Burke
64
CIP IV Timeline
Questions ??
65